tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9199848742267562587.post307983360309618842..comments2024-02-06T10:31:24.491-07:00Comments on Watching the World Wake Up: So why aren't there Pines in the Wasatch?Watcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02248341788957416471noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9199848742267562587.post-25201016930800353132020-01-21T16:18:11.521-07:002020-01-21T16:18:11.521-07:00Great questions and interesting discussion. FYI Th...Great questions and interesting discussion. FYI There are "old growth" Ponderosas around the Thistle slide, just above the Utah County Sheriff's shooting range. They're up to a few hundred years old. Re the discussion above, "Red pine" was actually Douglas-fir to the early settlers, because it has a reddish heartwood, and "white pine" was Engelmann spruce because it lacks the reddish heartwood. A book called "The Lady in the Ore Bucket" by Keller refers to yellow pine (aka ponderosa) being cut in Mill Creek Canyon in the 1860s. I agree that it is very unlikely that the whole species was removed from the Wasatch, but certainly a lot of it was, and there probably wasn't much to begin with. The same book has a quote that there were "precious few trees left" by 1881. so there was a ton of indiscriminate logging going on. And anything of value, like ponderosa, Doug-fir, and spruce would have been taken first. White fir and limber pine rot easily so they wouldn't have been too valuable, although there is some evidence that they were used for cabin building. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03714498328395475605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9199848742267562587.post-65722434161975114632020-01-21T14:24:36.667-07:002020-01-21T14:24:36.667-07:00https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56598789...https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56598789&itype=CMSIDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9199848742267562587.post-55430135649830344522009-03-31T22:40:00.000-06:002009-03-31T22:40:00.000-06:00I have wondered about the impact of logging for th...I have wondered about the impact of logging for the mining industry on the Wasatch since I moved here 12 years ago. Thanks for adressing that! Love your blog and glad to hear you are going to continue in 2009.Lucyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10896006691904225007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9199848742267562587.post-85748463120790275102008-12-06T05:03:00.000-07:002008-12-06T05:03:00.000-07:00Hey, glad you found it and thanks for stopping by....Hey, glad you found it and thanks for stopping by. So, interesting idea and great question, but my first take that I doubt it- wrt Pine- for a couple of reasons. But I think you're right on when it comes to <A HREF="http://watchingtheworldwakeup.blogspot.com/2008/08/unbearable-lightness-of-aspen-part-1.html" REL="nofollow">Aspen</A>.<BR/><BR/>So re: Pines, first, even though they cut down plenty, we know the settlers didn't log every single acre of the Wasatch (Think about high stands of Engelmann Spruce you pass by on the way up to Twin Peaks or Lone Peak and/or hiking around in the higher parts of Mt. Oly, Twin Peaks, or Lone Peak wilderness areas just East of the valley. And plenty of old Douglas Firs and White Firs in the Wasatch are older than 150 years.) Even in those un-cut areas, we almost never find Pines. <BR/><BR/>Second, I don't know of anywhere else in the West has led to complete disappearance of tree species in so large an area, with a totally different species conifer replacing another in so short a time.<BR/><BR/>And lastly, there's no records or written indications on Pines in the Wasatch from settlement times (though I can't say how thoroughly tree species were inventoried in UT before 1900 or so.) The frequent "Pine" names in places like "Red Pine Lake" refer to other conifers; "Red Pine" was what early settlers called Engelmann Spruce, for example. "White Pine" was used for White Fir (and maybe Limber Pine too.) The best example of settler tree-misnaming is "Cedar" for Juniper, which persists to this day.<BR/><BR/>But your idea is totally right-on in another case- <A HREF="http://watchingtheworldwakeup.blogspot.com/2008/08/unbearable-lightness-of-aspen-part-1.html" REL="nofollow">aspen</A>. Aspens do great in re-colonizing disturbed areas, and that's a large part of the reason aspens do so well around Park City- the surrounding hills were totally logged to fuel smelters (for mining) back in the 1800's, and so the aspen forests we see all over there today probably aren't what was there a couple hundred years ago.<BR/><BR/>-AlexWatcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02248341788957416471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9199848742267562587.post-66727181387241798332008-12-04T22:28:00.000-07:002008-12-04T22:28:00.000-07:00Heya Alex!I just found your blog and I gotta say i...Heya Alex!<BR/><BR/>I just found your blog and I gotta say its great stuff. :D I've always wondered what role pioneers and early settlers had in deforestation along the Wasatch front and in our local canyons, particularly those near SLC? <BR/><BR/>With lots of structures to build and heat, it seems logical that the early population could have gone through pines like candy! What do you think?Ben314zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09175766304923926591noreply@blogger.com